B101, why does colorado get in so easily with a 11-13 record vs the top 200 and i repeat 200 rpi? I know they beat kstate 3 times texas and mizzou but still a losing record against the top 200 shouldnt cut it. Bama should definitely be in with 13 wins in the SEC (inluding the tournament win). 4 of those coming against the east teams. So what im asking is what is the percent that bama get in?

I love you man but Clemson will be in it, whether or not they deserve to be. Georgia or Alabama will be out. THeres a difference between predicting what you think will happen and what you think SHOULD happen.

Bama a heart pick? I thought the consensus was that they were undeserving but would get in with their SEC record alone.

I could see Bama as a head pick based on lots of power conference wins, but absolutely no sympathy for them if they're out. They both had a miserable OOC SOS AND did badly against it. Between that and their conference they played 11 teams below 200.

with my bracket, look at 1st mentioned in each seed as a region, 2nd mention a diff region and so on. and i "s'curved" the whole thing. also a partial attempt at putting in pods geographically, easily noted in the kansas bracket, and az at 4 and utah st at 5 seeds in the duke west bracket.

UAB/Clemson just shocking to me. VT could be in big trouble. If VT is left out for the fourth straight year in a row (after pretty much everyone picking them as in) I think there might be a killing spree in Blacksburg tonight.

Ross, not necessarily. They don't follow the S-curve as closely as many people think, especially the way they have to spread out the top 16 teams that are in the same conference. It is just as likely they were one of the top 4-seeds and sent to Newark as a reward.

So obviously a rumor we had heard could be true... that the committee would put the 16-seed play-ins on different nights so that they could put an at-large play-in on each night for TV ratings. Because of this they have put Pittsburgh in DC and not in Cleveland.

The real shockers to me are USC and VCU. I can't see how either is ahead of Colorado or Va Tech. I guess bad losses don't matter or Va Tech would have been in over both. Is there any reasonable case for VCU over Va Tech?

People, if you looked at the Bracket and saw Texas as a 4 seed, you'd realize just how little weight people were giving a win over Texas. Plus there were those two close losses to Iowa State, the god-awful nonconf schedule they STILL couldn't win, and the ridiculously low RPI.

Great point by Dakich: if you take out all of Colorado's wins over teams ranked 200 or worse, their record is 11-13. Their entire resume depended on how good you think Kansas State is (plus their win over Texas during UT's two-week stretch where they lost to every B12 bubble team).

That being said, I am very, very surprised VCU and UAB both got in. Was Colorado the team that got left out because of that? No idea...

Can we all agree that the chance of Michigan beating state and then Illinois is practically nil? All michigan has to do is play better for the next two games than they've played all year. I give them a 6% chance of winning the next two games. If they do, they're on the bubble.

while i had fun making my own bracket, i feel i worked harder putting it together than the committee. and i think people that put websites like this one together can make the same argument.

not only due the snubs of VT and colo shock me, but some of those seeds are crazy. uga a 10, but no bama? florida at 2 when they lost their tourney? utah st a 12? all the lower big10 teams seeded higher than you'd think (most notably mich at 8...though i agree with penn st at 10) and i can go on an on.

and you can't even pick a pattern. you'd think rpi heavy, but then why no harvard? and why utah st. so low? and the reverse of that, putting in usc over some of the other teams.

i just cant get a rhyme or reason for how they did what they did other than use of a dart board and someone in indianapolis spiking the drinks of the committee that caused them to give way too high seeds to mich, mich st, and illinois.

Utah State and Richmond's 12s mean they probably wouldn't have made it without the automatic bid.

The only in/out issue I have with the field is they probably could have taken VT instead of UAB. I mean you'd at least think they had to beat ECU in the quarters to feel safe, especially since they never beat Memphis.

As for seeding...Florida a 2!? Izzo is not going to be intimidated by facing Billy Donovan at all.

Just watched ESPN bitch for a half hour about 2-3 teams that do not have a prayer of winning the National Championship. 5-10 minutes maximum and stick it at the end of the show. Give us your "expert" insight as to the strengths and weaknesses of each team.

BTW, if I have 2 brackets to fill out, one of them is strictly the seeds straight up. I have won 3 times and 2nd several other times doing it that way.

And in terms of the Big Ten, that was a bit odd. I was certain there would be a Big Ten sighting in the first 4. If you believe the seeds as "pure" (which I don't, I think they took some liberties for matchups and travel) that implies the Big Ten teams were all quite comfortable and all would've been in even in a 64 team field.

As a PSU fan, when I saw Michigan as an 8, I laughed and knew we (PSU) were in, no problem.

This is not meant as criticism of the "bracketologists," because they give us great diversions during the first two weeks of March and they generally have better reasoning than the selection committee. But is it almost time for America's bracketologists to discover new vocations if their object is to predict what the selection committee will do in terms of seeding and placement of teams, and not just predicting who will be in the field of 68?

The committee's bracket bears almost no resemblance to what the leading bracketologists predicted.

Because ESPN's Joe Lunardi gets most of the publicity, despite being ranked 23rd in the last rankings of bracketologists, consider his final bracket today. If I'm not mistaken, he correctly picked a grand total of three first-round games. He had Ohio State playing a 16 from one of the play-in games in the East (but missed on his choice of both 16 play-in teams), San Diego State and Northern Colorado meeting in the 2-15 game in the West and BYU playing Wofford in the 3-14 game in the Southeast. And he's the guy that we're supposed to follow when he predicts who's in the field and where everyone else is going?

I don't get why Florida gets so much flak for their 2 seed, when to me their resume is basically identical to North Carolina's: 26-6, won an OK conference, lost in the conference finals to a good team. Yes, Florida has 2 more bad losses, but they have a slightly higher RPI and SOS, and (more importantly) more top-notch wins... they can counter a win over Duke with 3 over Vandy, 3 over Tennessee, K-St., @Xavier, and a sweep over Georgia. If UNC deserves a 2, so does Florida.

Both equally Whilst gary Parrish along with Jerry Buy RS GoldSide hold the very same 68 competitors throughout. Would not be amazed if Cbs television studios published the particularWOW Gold area in order to each of them.

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.